Many of you have previously delved into (and debated) the Oregon Justice ruling that Bloggers are NOT journalists as per the 1st Amendment (see case ruling (here)). Crystal Cox lost the apparently biased litigation to the tune of $2.5 million.
Professor Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy blog (here) - took on Crystal Cox's "pro bono". Utilizing the local law firm in Oregon of Benjamin Souede they filed a new brief in defense of Blogging as protected by the 1st Amendment (here). As Professor Eugene Volokh states upon his blog;
Our local counsel Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC) and I have just filed a motion for new trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox. As you may recall, the Nov. 30 opinion in that case concluded, among other things, that only members of the institutional media are entitled to certain First Amendment libel law protections. The motion for new trial argues that the First Amendment applies equally to all who speak to the public, whether or not they belong to the institutional media. Here is Part I.A of our memorandum in support of the motion:
The Volokh Blog denotes that the United States Supreme Court is the controlling court on 1st Amendment issues and that it is well settled as he concludes his argument;
But while the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision establishes what Oregon state libel law is, it is the judgments of the United States Supreme Court that are controlling on the First Amendment question. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the institutional press enjoys such extra rights. All the federal courts of appeals that have considered this question have specifically held that the institutional press lacks any such extra rights. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United expressly closed the door that the earlier footnotes left open, making clear that a speaker’s First Amendment rights do not turn on whether she is a member of the institutional press.
Though many find fault with Crystal Cox's writing style and I am one of the few who defend her (because she is a friend too) - the fact of the matter remains this is a bigger question than just the Crystal Cox case. DailyKos, Justice Integrity and many other blogs are in harms way here.
See Counter Punch here;
http://www.counterpunch.org/...
See "We Support Crystal Cox" on FaceBook here;
http://www.facebook.com/...
See Professor Volokh's entire new Motion for Crystal Cox retrial here;
http://www.docstoc.com/...
But here
is an excellent time line study of Crystal Cox and her blogs vs Obsidian
It was produced by an "Anonymous" person on Professor Volokh's blog;
http://www.anonymous-insider.net/...
Forbes as the question is blogging journalism in its story 'You be the judge".
Reuters original story on the case (here).
As I am undoubtedly biased and can do nothing more than ask you to address the facts, so should Reuters and Forbes - for they have Blogs = but are also main stream mediums that have great disdain for the free enterprise of Bloggers who by their very existence - assault the earning potential of Forbes, WSJ and Reuters.
Here is a good example of totally unbiased review of Crystal's case;
http://www.opb.org/...
Also, being that Crystal is attacking attorneys "Bankruptcy Ring" control of our federal courts (please see case 3rd Circuit In re Arkansas (; therefore Receivers, Trustee's and attorneys at law cannot be a fair judge of the issue either.
At the Citizen Media Law Project they have the "entire" case history of pleadings;
http://www.citmedialaw.org/...
Partial of CMLP's summary of the case;
Case Number: CV-11-57-HZ
Relevant Documents:
Obsidian Complaint (01-14-2011)
Summons (01-28-2011)
More Definite Statement Request (04-11-2011)
Opposition to Definite Statement (04-25-2011)
We all need this to go to a full jury trial and to the United States Supreme Court (as is most likely the plan of Professor Volokh) -because very Much is at stake here.
Freedom!